Skip to main content
2:00 pm
manager as well. so that is why we brought in more players to make sure we are moving in the right direction going forward. we can give you a number of consultants before and then also the -- [ indiscernible ] >> okay. not a problem. >> i think that -- if i can just add to that, i think the whole question of what i would think of as the due diligence process is something that came in the size of this. and the magnitude and impact on both budget and schedule. it is important that that be a very visible process. we need to make clear what we have done to make sure we are doing enough and not too much. how do we draw that line. the various interests we have to serve.
2:01 pm
the number of consultancy, the money we are spending and the logic process to make sure we are doing everything we can and should to respond properly. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> the second item is an update on cca and ask barbara hail for an update. >> barbara hail, general assistant for power. i'm happy to report we completed the board of supervisors process september 18th. our program as conceived and presented to you is -- has been formally approved. just to remind folks i have a few slides on overhead, please. this program is the program as we have talked about it several years now.
2:02 pm
it provides customers -- residents in san francisco, businesses an opportunity to choose clean, renewable power as power to their business or residents, a partnership with pg&e where pg&e continues to provide services except for generation supply. it is premium, 100% renewable so it is more expensive to participate in this program than in pg&e standard tariffs. we have the same program mitigations that we have described to the commission before for our program risks targeting and phasing the program to make sure we have the right mix of customers for procured power. we are procuring power under contract with shell energy north america. part of what we engaged in
2:03 pm
with the board of supervisors resulted in some amendments to the program. that is what i wanted to highlight. the main emphasis that we heard from the board of supervisors as they reviewed the contract authorization we were seeking was a concern that customers not be surprised to be part of the program. this is same concern mayor lee also expressed. we want to make sure that has a broad customer notification process, where regardless of the language you speak in your home, regardless of your social economic program you will learn and make a choice to participate or not. strong part of the amendments we heard from the board were to really
2:04 pm
make sure low income customers in particular understand the program and what it means to them and their pocketbook. that's the amendments summarized here. strong emphasis on informed participation. in light of that we had planned and continue to plan a robust education and notification to customers about this program. that involves paid media, partnering with community-based organizations to make sure we are really talking through folks who have contacts within the communities. and it is a community engagement program. we expect to be partnering with other city departments, including the department of environment as we embark on this education and notification
2:05 pm
program. you will see on the consent agenda, 8c has us procuring additional resources through a contract so we will have an extensive outreach program. i wanted to also take a moment to remind the commission of the steps that we had been asked to -- conditions rather, we had been asked to meet prior to launching the program. these are simply the conditions that you had articulated us to meet in the resolution you approved in advance of going to the board of supervisors for approval. so this is a quick summary of those conditions. i can say that -- i can give you a quick status on each of those. so clean power s.f. rates have to be approved by
2:06 pm
pickup -- puc and board of supervisors. we are targeting january at board of supervisors for that activity. we need a final determination of the c.c.a. bond amount from the california public utilities commission. it is unclear on the timing on that. we already are meeting the requirements they have laid out, which was $100,000 bond. so we have met that requirement. whether they are going to have another decision or not is unclear to us at this point. all of the appropriations having been authorized was also a condition. that's complete. power enterprise having rates in place to be financially stable and in compliance with the commission's reserve policies, that is complete now. of course it is revised quarterly and we'll come back to you on that regular schedule. we will also be sure to come back prior to asking you to allow us to launch the program, revisit that
2:07 pm
and make sure we have met that condition. that is an ongoing check, as is part of our usual quarterly review. and we will need to have a contract for customer billing and data management. the back office functions. that is targeted to come to you in december. to give you a broader view of the next steps, we are here in october, as you see. and expecting them to hopefully successfully launch the program in july of next year. with that i'm happy to answer any questions. >> commissioners. >> i just have a request to at some point -- i think this is a great first step, thank you. >> thank you. >> especially in sort of letting us know because i wasn't quite tracking all the board amendments made at the time, so this is
2:08 pm
helpful to have this. but i did really hear loudly and clearly about this interest in making sure we do the proper outreach. >> yes. >> that is so important. especially to our low-income communities. i see on the time line that we are not going to be starting that really until january, right? >> correct. >> so we've got a couple months to get this right. >> yes. >> i'm just hoping you can come back to us next month, say, with a more fleshed out plan, strategy, time line, budget. you know, whatever else to really feel like we are doing we can to reach those communities. >> sounds great. we intend to come back with more information. as i mentioned, we have a contract on the agenda for approval today that will get us engaged with our consultant on that. hopefully in november, early december we will have a fully fleshed out program we can bring to you and make sure we are responding to that interest in an
2:09 pm
outreach. >> great. i know we are trying to schedule a lafco meeting. seems that would be great number one agenda item on that at that meeting, is to really have a good, strong plan for outreach. to be able to address those issues. >> yes, thank you. >> even something that would have -- i would love to see something visual like a map of the low income communities, the neighborhoods we are addressing. maybe overlaid by the focus group and where we are rolling out, something like that. >> okay. >> yes. commissioner caen. >> i don't want everybody jumping on me, but i have always been cures why we have never challenged the state in terms of the
2:10 pm
opt-out situation. has that ever been addressed, have we ever gone to them and said we are a diverse community. not many in marin county certainly, i don't believe, as diverse as we are, why is that such a rule can't we approach them and say let's do it this way. that is what i'm hearing through the board of supervisors. that is what i'm hearing from a number of people actually. get all the people in your bucket first, then proceed. i'm curious about how this has happened over the years. >> i can speak to the formation of the law.
2:11 pm
i wasn't with the city or wasn't sure what the city's level of engagement on the law but the community choice aggregation law was authored by then assemblywoman caroll migdon, so it was a san francisco initiative. through the legislative process, most parties supported the overall gist, if you will. my recollection is the effort to have it staged as an opt-out as opposed to opt-in was informed by efforts on the telecommunications side, where with deregulation and the allowing of competition within telecommunications market, where it wasn't just local phone service by
2:12 pm
pac bell anymore. long distance and local phone service competition was an opt-in type of program. there was dissatisfaction with the amount of penetration that was achieved by competitors when that market was attempted to be opened up. so i think that influenced the thinking of the policymakers at the -- in the assembly and senate oversight committees that oversee electric telecommunications issues, because those are combined committees. back in 2002, when that happened, that is my recollection of the formation and dialogue that was happening at that time. that doesn't preclude us. the opt-out requirements don't preclude us from having a preenrollment phase, a phase that allows us to say, hey, this is the program we are proposing. who wants in. we can certainly do that.
2:13 pm
we are planning to do that, commissioner, so that as part of our education and notification we are really talking to folks who want to learn more and to participate in the program, as well as talking to folks who really aren't interested in the premium product at the premium price. >> that is not my full understanding of the program. as we see with hc, we are giving $1,104,000 for this training. which i think is very necessary. don't doubt me on that. but i have also aware of
2:14 pm
the fact the key people targeting will have already expressed an interest, with those studis that were done a while back saying that they would be willing to pay more for green power. i'm starting to question if we need these programs now, if those are the people that we're not even going to be targeting. if you follow my train of thought here. >> sorry, i don't commissioner. if we need the consulting assistance? >> i believe -- may i take a shot at it? >> sure. >> i think she is really asking if we have identified people who are willing to participate and willing to join, why do we need this contract if we're going to bring those in
2:15 pm
first. and i think that we just have an idea who is interested. we want to make sure we have maximum penetration because we have 3 megawatts where we have to sell. we haven't captured all the people. we want to do more robust. as part of phase i we didn't want to concentrate on low income. we want to make sure everyone understands the program. as barbara was saying, and ed harrington said, we don't want to unknowingly capture someone but people willingly wanting to be in the program. that is the challenge with the communication consultant and our staff, the department of environment. how can we best give that information out and be as transparent as possible. i think that is what this
2:16 pm
consultant will help us formalize a communication plan and strategy. >> well, it was my understanding that we already did this. >> the work we did so far, commissioner, was survey work. it was polling work. to test the market, if you will, for -- test the appetite of san franciscans for the program. now we talk about account and customers of record and saying, you know, we tested and you sounded like you were interested, now is the time to really commit. we want them, when making the commitment, to be making it in an informed way. that is why we are proposing the education and outreach program and the communications consultant that's item 8c. >> what happens if you get a negative response? >> so under our program we
2:17 pm
are phasing it so we will have -- we will touch a portion of san francisco residents in the first phase. if more people said no than project wed will reach out to more san franciscans until we achieve the overall number of megawatts we have committed to with shell. i say committed to, we haven't actually committed with shell yet. that comes later. >> sorry to push this. but i assume the people we are reaching out to are prime people we would assume would want to go with this program. you are saying if they have a negative response then we go to another echelon, we are less likely to approve this. >> given the polling
2:18 pm
results, yes. i remember polling by nature. it is a sample of san franciscans, it is not everyone. it is helpful and we can pull it up on the map. soint the board here. what you see here is san francisco and the districts, supervisorial districts. the darker green coloring is more likely that precinct is to have a population that says yes, we want to stay with the program. you can see throughout san francisco how receptive the polling says the customer base is. we are proposing in the first phase to target households and achieve about 90,000 accountholders saying yes, please.
2:19 pm
there are 230,000 residential accounts in san francisco. if our projection of that first 90,000 account holders is wrong, we can reach out to more customers and see if others are interested. we are really looking at this customer outreach and education campaign as a way to make sure we are signing up the right folks who really want the program. but yes, we have done our homework to see if there is an appetite. this map shows you the results of that effort. >> i have seen all those studies. may i have the map up again, please. still on the board, we have overhead, please? thank you. okay. you are saying the panhandle -- >> the dark green. >> so you see gray area.
2:20 pm
>> the dark green is over on the bay side. >> yes. >> and by candlestick, you are saying. excuse me. at&t park. >> yes. >> i don't like it when we lose to -- >> you see in district six and district nine and district eight, some in 2. quite a bit of green area. those are areas, those precincts we are proposing to target initially. with preenrollment for the phase i target we are hoping to really touch folks and have them saying -- expressing their level of interest in advance of coming out with the state required opt-out portion of the education and notification. >> i'm confused about one,
2:21 pm
which is the panhandle. to me that is blue. is that really green? >> yeah, i'm sorry. the coloring is coming across, oddly. the panhandle proper, as a park, you can see the fing their comes out from golden gate park right here. that is gray. that is the panhandle. all around it is dark green and slightly lighter green to the south of the panhandle. >> i see. so the blue is really golden gate park. >> yes, yes. the blue-gray, yes. and the presidio also. >> we are hoping to build on this with customer education and campaign, where we are signing up folks for this clean power
2:22 pm
sfs program that want the program. no surprises. that know the approach. >> that is ahead of time? >> no surprises is ahead of time, yes. >> okay. >> couple questions. going back to some of your earlier slides, you show it as a 30 megawatt program. we had reserved i think that decision for later action. >> 20 to 30 megawatts i believe is -- up to 30 megawatts is what commissions resolution said. >> there is a series of commission is going to have to do in the process of implementing this program. that is one decision we have to make. the items as far as what prior resolution to be done, the intent of that
2:23 pm
was there would be a time at which the commission is able to look at the completed package and say have we done what we set out to do. is this ready to go. is it ready for prime time now. i don't see that on the schedule. i think there does need to be a point at which the commission takes a look at that. as far as the individual items that resolution called for, the one we have the least clarity on is the cpuc action. i think one of the things we will have to think about it is in the absence of their action how do we believe that affects the risk the city assumes in rolling out a program. and figure out if that is within the envelope we anticipated. the hope is that would be a real number.
2:24 pm
that we could figure out how we are going to fund that. >> right. >> and make a very quantitative decision at that point. looks as though it will be a lot harder to quantify that risk but we will need to do that at some point. we also have to have at some point amend the ten-year financial plan that we did not show the appropriation of reserves in the existing plan so when we go through that again in whenever it is, january, february, we will have to update that and have a more mature look at what the financials are, what that impact will be over time. there is a lot to be done there. one of the things i would hope we could do is set up as specific a program as we can so this commission can continue to be involved in
2:25 pm
monitoring what needs to be done and key decisions that needs to be made. in essence we are starting a new business. >> yes. >> what is theoretical is actually now and we need to make sure we are paying attention to the detail that is on that. perhaps one of the key ones is that whole rollout methodology that we choose, the board's inclination was clear, i agree with it. that may lead us to one answer versus another on the 20 to 30. there may be other parts of that as well that we want to look at. we have done another round, as i understand it, of surveys of customer acceptance that give us slightly different numbers that have some implication for that as well. that's a lot of stuff. what i would hope that you did layout for us, as soon as possible and not waiting for the meeting with lafco
2:26 pm
but to layout for us as soon as possible what the road map is of issues that need to be resolved, of actions that need to be taken so we have clear benchmarks to make sure we are on track and make sure we are expressing opinions, taking actions and decisions where we have to -- >> yes. we have a much more detailed time line that staff is working toward. perhaps that would be helpful to share so you can see the realms of activity that have to occur successfully to the point that get us back to you to come back and say that final step of may we launch the program. >> right. i think it may be that we have -- wesip is in such fast action that we ask wesip come before us every meeting and give us an update so we are not waiting for the quarterly reports. this is another one, it would be helpful to have an update on every meeting
2:27 pm
that we -- here is what we intended to do, here is what happened, then the commission can decide whether they want to weigh in or not. >> we can definitely do that. >> thank you. >> okay. >> any other thoughts or comments? >> very quickly, could we have a copy of that map? >> yes. you can leave it today. >> thank you. >> i have extra copies. >> mike campbell still our clean power guy? >> no, no. >> as we are talking about this, i'm -- you know, missing him even more. mike resigned and went and took a wonderful opportunity at the california public utilities commission, where he is going to head up one of the bureaus there in the rate
2:28 pm
payer advocacy group, which means we no longer have a director of the program. i'm beginning my outreach and recruitment for that. in the interim, however, we have a member of the team who has been working with mike who has stepped up to serve as our interim director. that is sheryl taylor. she is here today. thank you, sheryl. she's coming to us from todd reedstrom's team. she's been working side-by-side with mike. she will be the director as we pursue all the activities we have been talking about. >> great. >> i would encourage you to fill that position as quickly as possible. >> i'm feeling very motivated, commissioner. >> thank you. >> thank you all for your feedback, appreciate it. >> thank you. this has been something that you have worked toward for a long time. it's now become real.
2:29 pm
>> yes. >> so the pace increases, the stakes go up, and i'm sure you will welcome all the help you can get. >> thank you very much. >> one of the things also that -- at some point i think we need a greater discussion and will be certainly as we move toward the races, that some of the actions of the board have increased the rate burden that will be there. and we will need to figure out what that does to people's acceptance of the program as well. one question i had for you that i just recall is the board wants us to have a discount program for low income people. that is intended to be on top of the pg&e program. does the -- how does that -- is that really -- is pg&e still committed